Economics,crime and the market: the role of household content insurance

The authors thank Paul Fenn and Robert Dingwall for their comments on a previous version of this article. Jon Spencer is Lecturer in Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL United Kingdom. David Ward is Professor of Social and Community Studies, DeMontfort University, Scraptoft Campus, Leicester, LE7 9SU United Kingdom.     

The importance of self-beliefs on relational aggression of college students

This study examined the interrelationships among mattering to friends, self-esteem, spirituality, and perpetration of relational aggression in friendships among 457 college students. While the three self-belief variables were positively related to each other, only spirituality and mattering to friends discriminated between men and women. Women reported higher spirituality and mattering to friends, and men reported slightly higher self-esteem. Perpetration of relational aggression was negatively related to mattering to friends and self-esteem and was not related to spirituality. Findings are discussed in light of Erikson's theory of adolescent development and Gilligan's theory of interpersonal relationships.     

Using sketch drawing to induce inconsistency in liars

Purpose. Consistency as a cue to detecting deception was tested in two experiments using sketch drawing and verbal reports in repeated interviews. Liars were expected to be less consistent than truth‐tellers. Methods. In Expt 1, 80 undergraduate students reported truthfully or deceptively about an alleged lunch date – they sketched the layout of the restaurant and then answered spatial questions about objects in the restaurant. Ratings were given for the consistency between sketches and verbal reports. In Expt 2, 34 undergraduate students reported truthfully or deceptively about completing a series of unrelated tasks – they answered spatial questions about objects in a room and then sketched the layout of the room. Proportions were calculated for the consistency between verbal reports and sketches. Results. Expt 1. Liars were rated as less consistent than truth‐tellers. Up to 80% of truth‐tellers and 70% of liars could be correctly classified. Expt 2. Liars were less consistent than truth‐tellers on consistency proportions. Up to 100% of truth‐tellers and 77% of liars could be correctly classified. Conclusions. Using sketches to induce inconsistency may be a reliable, resource efficient way to help investigators detect deception.     

Causation in negligence: from anti-jurisprudence to principle--individual responsibility as the cornerstone for the attribution of liability

Causation is one of the most esoteric and poorly defined legal principles. The common law standards of the "but for" test and common sense are, in reality, code for unconstrained judicial choice. This leads to a high degree of unpredictability in negligence cases. Changes to the causation standard following the torts reforms have done nothing to inject principle into this area of law: the concept of "appropriateness" is no more illuminating than common sense. Despite this, the trend of recent High Court decisions offers some prospect of clarifying the test for causation. Key themes to emerge are an increased emphasis on individual responsibility and the associated concept of coherency with other legal standards. This article examines the doctrinal reasons underpinning the increasingly important role of these ideals and suggests how they can be accommodated into the test for causation to inject greater coherence and predictability into this area of law.